Change of Direction

[IrishPeter]

I currently have two ideas running around in my head for what to do with this line I am constructing in the garden.

The first is a mineral hauler in the 2'6"-3' gauge spectrum based loosely on 'Owd Ratty.'  Small locos, four-wheeler carriages, lots of open wagons.  This has more initial appeal, as it is the safe option, but may just be a bit too quaint for me. Also I have been modelling 3' gauge for years.

The second is an LNER owned Light Railway (yes, I know they did not have any NG, but imagination is a wonderful thing) with small, husky locomotives Ithink Earl and Countess, or the unbilt NER 0-6-0Ts) hauling transporter wagons and bogie coaches.  Sort of Leek and Manifold with a good deal of conventional NG thinking thrown in, and the LNER experimental low cost signalling system.  This appeals to my slightly off the wall side, and my interest in Calthrop's receipe for Light Railways - not to mention railways that have to skin a fart to save a farthing!

I am going to try and add a poll, which will close Thursday.  However, don't be surprise if y'all vote for one thing and I do t'other

Peter in AZ

[Sir Clothem Cap]

I think your descriptions show the way you want to win of course you could do the middle option and do both trains. Your railway Your rules

[laalratty]

Oooh, never heared of anyone trying to do an Owd Ratty in the garden, although of course I built the two coaches for Mr Bond. As you say, it did look rather quaint although personally I'm glad history panned out the way it did for the la'al ratty...

[IrishPeter]

T'Owd Ratty is an intriguing idea, but perhaps not for this time around, though it is a very tempting prototype.  What draws me to it is the ramshackle nature of the beast, and things like the overall roof at Ravenglass, and the simple buldings.  Operationally, though, it might be a bit dull,unless one expands the tourist trade a bit, and have a two train service (one passenger; t'other goods) in the summer months, which might require some interesting old signals to control movements.

The other scheme envisions a sort of "a half-Calthrop."  I was envisioning a nominally independent feeder to the the GCR, NER, or NBR which embraced Calthrop's ideas about freight handling, but was maybe a bit behind the curve in terms of locomotives and passenger stock.  A case of another engineer taking what he could use, and leaving the rest.  The advantage from a purely pragmatic point of view is that although this line would require large vehicles, it would require relatively few of them.  Storage space is a problem for me.

Peter in AZ